The brent appreciation society meeting!

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

ZYPH wrote:

GOB wrote:

Lets do it Brenty's way and base everything on current demand, so why do we need a mini stand at all?

Maybe because the currant stand is hard to maintain and is an health and safety problem.

Lets hope they are careful when raisin the roof then!

Asbestos. That was mentioned and it won't speed up the demolition process one bit.

Remember when the old Lyndhurst was demolished and the snack hut at the back was left standing for a while? Asbestos.

Could be tricky.

GOB wrote:

ZYPH wrote:

GOB wrote:

Lets do it Brenty's way and base everything on current demand, so why do we need a mini stand at all?

Maybe because the currant stand is hard to maintain and is an health and safety problem.

OK, the other three stands are ample enough based on current attendances? Why not just knock it down, build a set of changing rooms, a fans bar and then leave it for a more ambitious owner in the future?

I expect the fans bar would be too small for some ?

ZYPH wrote:

GOB wrote:

ZYPH wrote:

GOB wrote:

Lets do it Brenty's way and base everything on current demand, so why do we need a mini stand at all?

Maybe because the currant stand is hard to maintain and is an health and safety problem.

OK, the other three stands are ample enough based on current attendances? Why not just knock it down, build a set of changing rooms, a fans bar and then leave it for a more ambitious owner in the future?

I expect the fans bar would be too small for some ?

and to large for those that would prefer a development for Brenty's bank account than a successful future for PAFC.

My Favourite part of the show was when Jimmy gave the   a mention for being his goferdriver, apparently he likes looking up at the trees and reminding his master what time of year it is by reading the foliage conditions, so now we know why he was present at the FOCP meet at the Cherry Tree, not to disrupt or intimidate................he's a tree lover.  

The audience, with a few exceptions, generally resembled Gods Waiting Room. I'd hazard a guess that the majority attending were going to the Fanfest anyway, and just came a bit early to fawn over the Great Man and his magnificent Board of mute Directors.

Even the nailed on banker of a 'good news story', in the unveiling of a decent supporters bar failed to materialize.

Any idea who the fella who looked like an aged Tony Pulis, sat next to Iddesleigh Green was? Talking of Jones, that meeting was the perfect microcosm of all he has spoken of and contributed to since returning to the Board - i.e. the square root of fuc k all.

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

Can anyone understand/explain what is said between 30:13 and 13:20?

I guess you mean 30:13 to 30:20?

I don't really understand but what I think he is saying is that the PCC will continue to hold the freehold of the ground. The retail units will be leased from PCC on a 125yr lease. That lease will not be held by Akkeron. It will be held by an institutional investor.

The interesting part of Graham Clarke's question for me was whether it was possible for Akkeron to give up its automatic option to purchase the ground at the fixed points in the future that were written into the contract with PCC. Otherwise the possibility would be that, say, Akkeron does purchase the freehold from the council and then sells it on to another "institutional investor". This would most likely provide further profit for Akkeron. BUT, far more significant, it would mean that control of the ground would not only be removed from the club but would also be removed from the people of Plymouth in the form of PCC. If we were lucky this hypothetical buyer would have the best interests of the club in mind because they would be passionate about football &/or Plymouth. Thinking out loud - I'm not sure what would be gained by a buyer who wasn't interested in football as there are restrictions on the alternative developments to be built in HHP; maybe there would be the possibility of taking down another stand, replacing it with another smaller one with 'improved facilities' & building, say, sports-related retail units & a private gym or sports injury clinic or whatever. PCC may be a useless owner but at least they would have a political come-back if they took those sorts of moves. An institutional investor would have few restrictions.

We are where we are because of the mismanagement in the past. We all have different baddies in that scenario. Maybe one day the Truth will all come out in some form that is convincing for the majority. The reality is that we have Mr Brent as an owner. Like him or loathe what he has been doing, we are stuck with him. I hope his commitment to putting Argyle on a sound financial footing does pay off. Unless the enraged people who simply sit & type become more active then there will be no real pressure on the current owners. The reality is that with a crowd of over 6,000 (I think the third highest in the division which for a club in our position is impressive) many people seem satisfied.

Another reality is that if we continue the improvement on the pitch we will attract a better standard of player and this in turn will contribute to the improvement at the club. That is the measure by which most people will judge the current owners.

knecht wrote:

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

Can anyone understand/explain what is said between 30:13 and 13:20?

I guess you mean 30:13 to 30:20?

I don't really understand but what I think he is saying is that the PCC will continue to hold the freehold of the ground. The retail units will be leased from PCC on a 125yr lease. That lease will not be held by Akkeron. It will be held by an institutional investor.

The interesting part of Graham Clarke's question for me was whether it was possible for Akkeron to give up its automatic option to purchase the ground at the fixed points in the future that were written into the contract with PCC. Otherwise the possibility would be that, say, Akkeron does purchase the freehold from the council and then sells it on to another "institutional investor". This would most likely provide further profit for Akkeron. BUT, far more significant, it would mean that control of the ground would not only be removed from the club but would also be removed from the people of Plymouth in the form of PCC. If we were lucky this hypothetical buyer would have the best interests of the club in mind because they would be passionate about football &/or Plymouth. Thinking out loud - I'm not sure what would be gained by a buyer who wasn't interested in football as there are restrictions on the alternative developments to be built in HHP; maybe there would be the possibility of taking down another stand, replacing it with another smaller one with 'improved facilities' & building, say, sports-related retail units & a private gym or sports injury clinic or whatever. PCC may be a useless owner but at least they would have a political come-back if they took those sorts of moves. An institutional investor would have few restrictions.

We are where we are because of the mismanagement in the past. We all have different baddies in that scenario. Maybe one day the Truth will all come out in some form that is convincing for the majority. The reality is that we have Mr Brent as an owner. Like him or loathe what he has been doing, we are stuck with him. I hope his commitment to putting Argyle on a sound financial footing does pay off. Unless the enraged people who simply sit & type become more active then there will be no real pressure on the current owners. The reality is that with a crowd of over 6,000 (I think the third highest in the division which for a club in our position is impressive) many people seem satisfied.

Another reality is that if we continue the improvement on the pitch we will attract a better standard of player and this in turn will contribute to the improvement at the club. That is the measure by which most people will judge the current owners.

I was more interested in how it was being funded. Institutional sale? Sell(?) the pension fund to fund the development?

13:13 to 13:27

ZYPH wrote:

Having watched the recording three times...

I didn't get past the first 5 minutes on my first attempt, so full respect for that.

knecht wrote:

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

Can anyone understand/explain what is said between 30:13 and 13:20?

I guess you mean 30:13 to 30:20?

I don't really understand but what I think he is saying is that the PCC will continue to hold the freehold of the ground. The retail units will be leased from PCC on a 125yr lease. That lease will not be held by Akkeron. It will be held by an institutional investor.

The interesting part of Graham Clarke's question for me was whether it was possible for Akkeron to give up its automatic option to purchase the ground at the fixed points in the future that were written into the contract with PCC. Otherwise the possibility would be that, say, Akkeron does purchase the freehold from the council and then sells it on to another "institutional investor". This would most likely provide further profit for Akkeron. BUT, far more significant, it would mean that control of the ground would not only be removed from the club but would also be removed from the people of Plymouth in the form of PCC. If we were lucky this hypothetical buyer would have the best interests of the club in mind because they would be passionate about football &/or Plymouth. Thinking out loud - I'm not sure what would be gained by a buyer who wasn't interested in football as there are restrictions on the alternative developments to be built in HHP; maybe there would be the possibility of taking down another stand, replacing it with another smaller one with 'improved facilities' & building, say, sports-related retail units & a private gym or sports injury clinic or whatever. PCC may be a useless owner but at least they would have a political come-back if they took those sorts of moves. An institutional investor would have few restrictions.

We are where we are because of the mismanagement in the past. We all have different baddies in that scenario. Maybe one day the Truth will all come out in some form that is convincing for the majority. The reality is that we have Mr Brent as an owner. Like him or loathe what he has been doing, we are stuck with him. I hope his commitment to putting Argyle on a sound financial footing does pay off. Unless the enraged people who simply sit & type become more active then there will be no real pressure on the current owners. The reality is that with a crowd of over 6,000 (I think the third highest in the division which for a club in our position is impressive) many people seem satisfied.

Another reality is that if we continue the improvement on the pitch we will attract a better standard of player and this in turn will contribute to the improvement at the club. That is the measure by which most people will judge the current owners.

The issue is quite a simple one. Once Akkeron (as overall owners of the football club) exercise their option to purchase the freehold we are then forever beholden to the goodwill of any future owner. I am talking about the next generation of Argyle fans here. The stadium as a public asset will be lost forever and I wonder after our recent history whether that is in the best long term interests of the supporters who fought hard to safeguard the future of the club.

Any future owner could remortgage the ground to assist funding team building for example which could spell financial disaster or it could be sold to in unrelated third party. Could it happen? You only have to think of Todd and Gardner. Remember HPPL where income streams were to be siphoned off away from the football club. At the moment and for the foreseeable future the rent represents a very small and manageable element of the club's turnover. It gives us a genuine chance of sustainability and stability. After careful I just thought I would prefer that the stadium stayed in public ownership and for future generations and the meeting on Saturday gave me an opportunity to ascertain the views of the club's present owner.

Graham Clark wrote:

knecht wrote:

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

Can anyone understand/explain what is said between 30:13 and 13:20?

I guess you mean 30:13 to 30:20?

I don't really understand but what I think he is saying is that the PCC will continue to hold the freehold of the ground. The retail units will be leased from PCC on a 125yr lease. That lease will not be held by Akkeron. It will be held by an institutional investor.

The interesting part of Graham Clarke's question for me was whether it was possible for Akkeron to give up its automatic option to purchase the ground at the fixed points in the future that were written into the contract with PCC. Otherwise the possibility would be that, say, Akkeron does purchase the freehold from the council and then sells it on to another "institutional investor". This would most likely provide further profit for Akkeron. BUT, far more significant, it would mean that control of the ground would not only be removed from the club but would also be removed from the people of Plymouth in the form of PCC. If we were lucky this hypothetical buyer would have the best interests of the club in mind because they would be passionate about football &/or Plymouth. Thinking out loud - I'm not sure what would be gained by a buyer who wasn't interested in football as there are restrictions on the alternative developments to be built in HHP; maybe there would be the possibility of taking down another stand, replacing it with another smaller one with 'improved facilities' & building, say, sports-related retail units & a private gym or sports injury clinic or whatever. PCC may be a useless owner but at least they would have a political come-back if they took those sorts of moves. An institutional investor would have few restrictions.

We are where we are because of the mismanagement in the past. We all have different baddies in that scenario. Maybe one day the Truth will all come out in some form that is convincing for the majority. The reality is that we have Mr Brent as an owner. Like him or loathe what he has been doing, we are stuck with him. I hope his commitment to putting Argyle on a sound financial footing does pay off. Unless the enraged people who simply sit & type become more active then there will be no real pressure on the current owners. The reality is that with a crowd of over 6,000 (I think the third highest in the division which for a club in our position is impressive) many people seem satisfied.

Another reality is that if we continue the improvement on the pitch we will attract a better standard of player and this in turn will contribute to the improvement at the club. That is the measure by which most people will judge the current owners.

The issue is quite a simple one. Once Akkeron (as overall owners of the football club) exercise their option to purchase the freehold we are then forever beholden to the goodwill of any future owner. I am talking about the next generation of Argyle fans here. The stadium as a public asset will be lost forever and I wonder after our recent history whether that is in the best long term interests of the supporters who fought hard to safeguard the future of the club.

Any future owner could remortgage the ground to assist funding team building for example which could spell financial disaster or it could be sold to in unrelated third party. Could it happen? You only have to think of Todd and Gardner. Remember HPPL where income streams were to be siphoned off away from the football club. At the moment and for the foreseeable future the rent represents a very small and manageable element of the club's turnover. It gives us a genuine chance of sustainability and stability. After careful I just thought I would prefer that the stadium stayed in public ownership and for future generations and the meeting on Saturday gave me an opportunity to ascertain the views of the club's present owner.

Well done for finally screwing out of him his preferred option to buy the Freehold, Graham. Though tbh, I don't think too many of us were the slightest bit surprised.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

ZYPH wrote:

Having watched the recording three times...

I didn't get past the first 5 minutes on my first attempt, so full respect for that.

Just had to watch incase Mr Jones fell off the end of the stage....or was it Madame Tussaud's latest creation.

Watched three times incase it ended differently for Mr Jones...disappointed.

How can anyone dare to say that this wasnt a stage event with preapproved questions?

Graham may choose to differ with that opinion.

Iggy wrote:

Graham may choose to differ with that opinion.

Indeed. It's all very depressing and largely pointless. Brent will do exactly what he wants and can get away with.

Don't think I can be arsed to be bothered much more. Will still pop in for a wry argiggle occasionally though.

Czarcasm wrote:

Graham Clark wrote:

knecht wrote:

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

Can anyone understand/explain what is said between 30:13 and 13:20?

I guess you mean 30:13 to 30:20?

I don't really understand but what I think he is saying is that the PCC will continue to hold the freehold of the ground. The retail units will be leased from PCC on a 125yr lease. That lease will not be held by Akkeron. It will be held by an institutional investor.

The interesting part of Graham Clarke's question for me was whether it was possible for Akkeron to give up its automatic option to purchase the ground at the fixed points in the future that were written into the contract with PCC. Otherwise the possibility would be that, say, Akkeron does purchase the freehold from the council and then sells it on to another "institutional investor". This would most likely provide further profit for Akkeron. BUT, far more significant, it would mean that control of the ground would not only be removed from the club but would also be removed from the people of Plymouth in the form of PCC. If we were lucky this hypothetical buyer would have the best interests of the club in mind because they would be passionate about football &/or Plymouth. Thinking out loud - I'm not sure what would be gained by a buyer who wasn't interested in football as there are restrictions on the alternative developments to be built in HHP; maybe there would be the possibility of taking down another stand, replacing it with another smaller one with 'improved facilities' & building, say, sports-related retail units & a private gym or sports injury clinic or whatever. PCC may be a useless owner but at least they would have a political come-back if they took those sorts of moves. An institutional investor would have few restrictions.

We are where we are because of the mismanagement in the past. We all have different baddies in that scenario. Maybe one day the Truth will all come out in some form that is convincing for the majority. The reality is that we have Mr Brent as an owner. Like him or loathe what he has been doing, we are stuck with him. I hope his commitment to putting Argyle on a sound financial footing does pay off. Unless the enraged people who simply sit & type become more active then there will be no real pressure on the current owners. The reality is that with a crowd of over 6,000 (I think the third highest in the division which for a club in our position is impressive) many people seem satisfied.

Another reality is that if we continue the improvement on the pitch we will attract a better standard of player and this in turn will contribute to the improvement at the club. That is the measure by which most people will judge the current owners.

The issue is quite a simple one. Once Akkeron (as overall owners of the football club) exercise their option to purchase the freehold we are then forever beholden to the goodwill of any future owner. I am talking about the next generation of Argyle fans here. The stadium as a public asset will be lost forever and I wonder after our recent history whether that is in the best long term interests of the supporters who fought hard to safeguard the future of the club.

Any future owner could remortgage the ground to assist funding team building for example which could spell financial disaster or it could be sold to in unrelated third party. Could it happen? You only have to think of Todd and Gardner. Remember HPPL where income streams were to be siphoned off away from the football club. At the moment and for the foreseeable future the rent represents a very small and manageable element of the club's turnover. It gives us a genuine chance of sustainability and stability. After careful I just thought I would prefer that the stadium stayed in public ownership and for future generations and the meeting on Saturday gave me an opportunity to ascertain the views of the club's present owner.

Well done for finally screwing out of him his preferred option to buy the Freehold, Graham. Though tbh, I don't think too many of us were the slightest bit surprised.

At last our own Firoz Kassam has revealed his true colours in public

Angry wrote:

How can anyone dare to say that this wasnt a stage event with preapproved questions?

I can.

I was there and no-one knew what I was going to ask (including a question about the budget which went unanswered).

GreenSam wrote:

Angry wrote:

How can anyone dare to say that this wasnt a stage event with preapproved questions?

I can.

I was there and no-one knew what I was going to ask (including a question about the budget which went unanswered).

there you go you just confirmed my point that it was staged and no real pressing questions where answered hence forth it was staged.

Angry wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Angry wrote:

How can anyone dare to say that this wasnt a stage event with preapproved questions?

I can.

I was there and no-one knew what I was going to ask (including a question about the budget which went unanswered).

there you go you just confirmed my point that it was staged and no real pressing questions where answered hence forth it was staged.

I'm a tad confused by that Mr.Angy!! I'm not making an issue of it - but if you could just clarify, especially as GS has just said that no-one could know what he was going to say!.

But he did say that his question about the budget 'went unanswered'. Why was it unanswered Sam ?

Tringreen wrote:

But he did say that his question about the budget 'went unanswered'. Why was it unanswered Sam ?

I asked it in relation to the derisory offer about Lee Cox.

MS went on to explain the circumstances surrounding the Lee Cox bid as you can see in the video but then did not answer the second part of the two part question which was about not just Cox but the wider budget itself. Perhaps I'll be charitable and say he was caught up in answering part one and therefore forgot to answer part two  

Quote
The issue is quite a simple one. Once Akkeron (as overall owners of the football club) exercise their option to purchase the freehold we are then forever beholden to the goodwill of any future owner. I am talking about the next generation of Argyle fans here. The stadium as a public asset will be lost forever and I wonder after our recent history whether that is in the best long term interests of the supporters who fought hard to safeguard the future of the club.Quote

I heard that some people are looking into the community asset angle to see if it will over ride the option to purchase

GreenSam wrote:

Angry wrote:

How can anyone dare to say that this wasnt a stage event with preapproved questions?

I can.

I was there and no-one knew what I was going to ask (including a question about the budget which went unanswered).

Was the youtube video a start-to-finish of the entire Q & A, Sam? Or were there Q & A's that were edited out?

Also did everyone who wanted to ask a question get to do so?

Czarcasm wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Angry wrote:

How can anyone dare to say that this wasnt a stage event with preapproved questions?

I can.

I was there and no-one knew what I was going to ask (including a question about the budget which went unanswered).

Was the youtube video a start-to-finish of the entire Q & A, Sam? Or were there Q & A's that were edited out?

Also did everyone who wanted to ask a question get to do so?

Having watched the video, I can't recall any questions that were said at the meeting and didn't feature. The time is slightly shorter than I recall but that's because all that was cut out were pauses between questions (selecting people to ask etc) which no-one wants to hear anyway. There wasn't any selective editing of questions- if there was I doubt Graham's would have made the cut.

And yes, everyone who had their hand up got to ask a question. Obviously there was a time limit with the fan fest to follow but it was decided that those who had hands up would be given time to ask a question before it was wrapped up.

Angry wrote:

How can anyone dare to say that this wasnt a stage event with preapproved questions?

 
 
 
 
I dare say it......what total garbage.

It's people like you that give ATD a bad name.

Ref community asset and who gets first say on who buys the ground. You may find this interesting [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]